Daniel Ashman’s Closing statement: in City of London’s attempt to evict Occupy LSX, judgement due 11th January

“The claimant has sought legal action from the outset; at first they joined the cathedral in that action. Then after that they have sort and collected many reports. At this point would like to quote the judge. “It’s accurate as far as it goes but it does not tell the story.’ Although I recognise that I am taking his meaning out of context. It resonated so much I felt compelled to write it down. ’It’s accurate as far as it goes but it does not tell the story’

What I hope I have done is added to this story. What is taking place now through a network of institutions culminates in genocide. The legal system definition of genocide is: “The deliberate and systematic destruction in any part of any ethnic, racial, religious or national group”

I believe that institutions in the proximity of the occupation, namely near the London Stock exchange and London’s Central Business District, have continued with the theft of land, theft of resources and murder. The means that are used are multifaceted and with respect I would like to bring to your honour’s and the court’s attention:

DISTRICT JUDGE@ MILDENHALL MAGISTRATES: REGINAV ANULLA ZELTERS + OTHERS
THE PLOUGHSHARES 4: HAWK FIGHTER LIVERPOOL: CROWN: 30th JULY 1996
SECTION 3: CRIMINAL LAW@ LAWFUL NECESSITY: LAWFUL CAUSE

1996 Liverpool jury acquitted four women caused £1.5 million damage to Hawk Fighter Jets at a British Aerospace factory

1999 3 women cleared of causing £80,000 damage to Trident nuclear submarines computer equipment

2000 Five Greenpeace volunteers not guilty of criminal damage after occupying an incinerator

2000 Norwich jury found Greenpeace Lord Melchett and 27 activists not guilty of criminal damage to field of GM crops

2008 Kingsnorth Trial, coal protesters cleared of criminal damage to Chimney.

I do believe like many others who stay in the tents that other avenues for recourse reparation, reconciliation and remedy, have been exhausted:
1. reporting of crimes ignored
2. protest not effective
3. petitions not listened to
4. lobbying not effective
5. elections not effective
6. private prosecutions ruled out by courts without justification
7. crimes not prosecuted
i. banking
ii. family law
iii. war and others

It is now five in the morning, I have not slept and I will shortly be leaving for Leicester. We have been searching for a number of court cases that have rulings of “lawful excuse.”

I would like to bring to the attention to the court once more to
REGINAV ANULLA ZELTER + OTHERS: LIVERPOOL CROWN COURT: THE PLOUGH SHARER 4: 30th July 1996

Perhaps by the time you get this we will have produced a written copy of the submission. It is worth noting after a three hour search we could not locate the transcript, only newspaper reports.

The actual measurement outside the Tea cafe when the width is reduced by the obstruction of tables and chairs is 3.8 metres. It seems strange to me that considering all the reports and documents the corporations have instructed Andrew Colvin to gather, that they have not taken accurate measurements for the true free foot-fall areas within business hours. This is quite a critical omission; I cannot dwell too much on words as I have to leave in 15 minutes.

Mr Wilkinson has admitted that people can access the Cathedral. Mr Cotton said “There was no pressing need to reopen the garden.” The City of London Police Representative described his force as one of the best in England, and I wish to compliment the police officers for their handling of some very sensitive issues and their cooperation with the occupy tranquillity team.

I wish the court to know that the team that has freely assembled and wished to contribute to my defence have done it from the camp: in the tents.

I give permission to Luke Wilkins and Steven Rushton to add what they feel is pertinent to our search for justice.

My untrained, voluntary legal assistant Steve Rushton is from Southampton, next year he will be writing a postgraduate study to critique Neo-liberalism from an Indigenous perspective. Currently he works in a school as a learning mentor. From his perspective he would like to add:

“Your honour, thank you for your patience, flexibility and accommodation
Without the tents, I would not be able to be part of this movement in weekends and using holidays. Occupy is an opportunity to discuss the many critical problems facing the world, including:
-the annihilation of indigenous peoples
-the destruction of the commons and the global environments
-the injustices of the world, such as war and slavery
-the severe inequalities of the Neo-liberal world

Occupy and the tents allow me to join a global inclusive dialogue to engender a just, universally sustainable and equitable coherent alternative to the current system. I would question the motives and loyalties of anyone who wanted to stop this dialogue. Your honour with respect I ask, please do not end this: the most important possible human conversation.”

no jobs so the youf in tents

Steve is spot on when he notes that this term has ?negative connotations . . . engendered by the media and academia throughout the 20th Century affirming a myth that there are no alternatives to the current system . . . thus . . . suggesting that we as humans cannot improve on what has gone before.? But that doesn’t mean we have to accept these hostile connotations.

Capitalism is based on accumulation of wealth, which as time goes on has ended up in fewer and fewer hands, leaving the 99% with less to live on, and giving the 1% the power to destroy even the climate that supports life on earth. Many of us think capitalism?s relentless imperative to accumulate is deadly in itself. The 99% have to be able to do better than that! After all, all over the world it is the 99% who actually create all the wealth. So for many of us, anti-capitalism has everything to do with Occupy.

Of course, many Occupiers also have another view, and instead want a better form of capitalism, or want to ?democratise capitalism?, as the big new banner says. It is the beauty of Occupy that reformers and anti-capitalists have found ways to get along together, as have others who normally wouldn?t even say hello to each other, like academics and rough sleepers. This is one crucial product of living together day after day in our great melting pot.

It is absolutely vital to the nature and the strength of Occupy that we continue to reflect BOTH sides of this ?capitalism? debate — in our media statements, on our website, on our banners, etc. , rather than rejecting one side just because the media or academia have tried to give it a bad name! How different labels (like ?anti-capitalist?, or like “democratise”) are understood can change quite quickly, and we shouldn?t be afraid of being ?discredited? by them. Much more important is to celebrate the fact that Occupy represents a real diversity of viewpoints — amazingly, without the usual in-fighting and disrespect of others? perspectives. After all, we are all learning together.

In the same way, it is crucial that the views of those who are determined to stay living at St Paul’s are given as much space on the website, in media comments, and in Occupied Times, as those who want to down-size. The testimony in court did much to highlight the reasons for this. If we were forced out we might still be able to do something of some value. But we would lose not only the place where the public knows we are making our most effective, challenging stand against corporate power, not only our presence at the door of the church, which has done so much to realign that influential part of he establishment, not only the moral force of our determination to hold out against the odds, but also the place where we are all together, where we are slowly building a community and a powerful voice out of the most disparate, unlikely combinations of backgrounds and viewspoints –proving that the 99% can really come together after all.

Ruth

Does terming Gramsci an “anti-fascist” have negative connotations ? or would describing him a leading marxist (which is a considerably more typical and perhaps a more accurate adjective) have more negative connotations ?

some people actually are anti-capitalist & some are even left-wing – many of them have arguments that are not so easily disposed of as “not reflected”, “failed” or “negative”, and it is just the application of hegemony (which ironically is the theory which Gramsci is most famously associated) that would have us deny that.